The Instigator
TheEnvironmentalist123667
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
ViceRegent
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Should There Be Stricter Laws Regarding Fossil Fuel Emissions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
TheEnvironmentalist123667
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/19/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 294 times Debate No: 91521
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

TheEnvironmentalist123667

Pro

Fossil Fuels such as Carbon Dioxide get stuck in the atmosphere for decades, and are the main cause of global warming. Stricter laws should be implemented, as this can affect many low lying nations. Therefore, stricter laws should be made about emissions.
ViceRegent

Con

Why don't you Enviornazis leave the rest of us alone. If CO2 is such a problem, kill yourself so that you never emit any more. If you are unwilling to do that, then you no more believe your silly claims than I do. In the meantime, I will oppose your Nazism with my God-given property rights.
Debate Round No. 1
TheEnvironmentalist123667

Pro

North America is one of the main producers of fossil fuels, chemicals that destroy the atmosphere, many factories emit excessive amounts of these. Having laws on the amount of fossil fuels someone was allowed to produce, would reduce the concentration of chemicals everywhere.
ViceRegent

Con

Blah, blah, blah. Again, until you Envionazis are willing to kill yourselves to stop CO2 emissions, leave me alone. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
TheEnvironmentalist123667

Pro

If there had been stricter laws regarding fossil fuel emissions, maybe there wouldn't be global warming or climate change. Or, if there still was, the atmosphere probably would have had less greenhouse gasses. Unfortunately, there wasn't and look at the punishment.
ViceRegent

Con

Are you still alive? Obviously, you do not believe the crap you are spewing. Until you do, leave me alone.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 12 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: FaustianJustice// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Between the pair, Pro obviously had better conduct, and established (however feeble) an attempt at a case, and the desire to stay on topic. Con offered nothing save insults.

[*Reason for removal*] It should be clear, whenever the voter is making a decision based on arguments, how one side won the debate and how the other lost it. Being off topic is a way to lose a debate, to be sure, but being on topic isn't, by itself, a way to win it. You can be on topic and never provide any arguments for your side. That's why the voter is required to assess specific points made by both sides, in this case to establish how any of Pro's arguments affirmed the resolution and how Con was off topic.

Note: Conduct is borderline explained here. The voter really has to do more than just say that one side was insulting - it should be clear what at least one of those insults was. In this case, it's relatively obvious, but a single quote would help this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Axonly 1 year ago
Axonly
This just illustrates what a terrible human being you are, Vice.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
TheEnvironmentalist123667ViceRegentTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was obviously not interested in the debate, suggesting, for instance, that Pro should "kill himself". For this, conduct goes to Pro. Pro was also the only one who actually made a case. Con didn't even bother to do that. For this reason, I award argument points to Pro.